RE: [boost] [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-08 19:42:25

David Abrahams wrote:
> > 2) We don't recognise the compiler: assume that it is standard
> > conforming and disable all workarounds.
> 
> Is this a different case from "we recognize the compiler, but not the
> compiler version"?
> 
> Incidentally, I think we had some kind of agreement a while back
> (sparked by Thomas Witt, IIRC) that when a workaround is implemented
> for the most recent compiler version, no assumption should be made
> that the corresponding bug will be fixed in future versions. 

That was probably me
(http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg16944.php). Actually, it's not
"incidentally" at all - that very thread was what triggered the introduction
of BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG with the semantics John is trying to defend ;).

> I don't think my macro accounts for that, and I really don't know a good
way
> to cope with it. I don't think we ought to add any workarounds without
> at least some way to record the most-recent version where it's known
> to be needed.

Well,

#if defined(COMPILER_VER) && (COMPILER_VER <= xxx ||
!defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG))

is the current way to do exactly that (a verbose one, admittedly).

Aleksey